Aqua Man
- Posts
- 26,479
- Reactions
- 59,693
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2018
- Points
- 638
I agree with you 100% I think it's the chlorophyll not the nutrients personally. Although ppl tend to think nitrogen is the culprit and that is mobile I have some evidence that disputes that and I can post once I get home. I have come this conclusion based on exclusion and studies I have researched and by no means am I the first one to do so. Not that I am qualified to say for certain but in my simple mind its likely.with a lot, not all of the minerals and chemicals that fertilizer puts in the plant tissue and a large majority of these become "immobile" and or fixed in the plants tissue how than does flushing work?????
I call it the placebo effect. Stop using BS PGRs bud hardeners and a myriad of other junk then there wouldn't be a need to flush at all. But again I ask, with a lot of stuff the plant eats/utilizes becoming "fixed" in its tissues, how then does plain water remove it. Think about it brothers.
I call it the placebo effect. Stop using BS PGRs bud hardeners and a myriad of other junk then there wouldn't be a need to flush at all. But again I ask, with a lot of stuff the plant eats/utilizes becoming "fixed" in its tissues, how then does plain water remove it. Think about it brothers.
all im getting at is I use organic inputs with a balanced living soil. Never flush and have never had any complaints on my meds. thats all Im sayn.Bacteria in the plant is all that will work on soil uptakes. How does water remove it? You can't flush Cannabis with water. Didn't know that was the debate. You flush with isotonic solution to block uptake of nutes over the period it takes the plants bacteria to do its job on the old. So that new material can't get in and the old can be broken down, by bacteria.
Quit thinking we're growing plants and just grow bacteria. We don't grow plants. We just fetch food. For bacteria. Curing has nothing to do with chlorophyll. If your crops have no bacteria and no plant sugars/fats etc, it gets confusing.
This is so wrong idk where to start. Bacteria only permeate the roots (not all types) and depending on the bacteria have a symbiotic relationship by breaking nutrients down into a form more easily taken up by the plants. The plants provides food for the bacteria.Bacteria in the plant is all that will work on soil uptakes. How does water remove it? You can't flush Cannabis with water. Didn't know that was the debate. You flush with isotonic solution to block uptake of nutes over the period it takes the plants bacteria to do its job on the old. So that new material can't get in and the old can be broken down, by bacteria.
The problem is that isotonic solution has its own flavor.. By the time you need to flush, your bacteria is nil. Which makes the confusion worse since isotonic flushes are also bacteria feeds. Youve got a bunch of intent marketed to people with no understanding of how when where and why these circumstances actually benefit anyone. In most case they benefit the perpetual income on the hydro store
Quit thinking we're growing plants and just grow bacteria. We don't grow plants. We just fetch food. For bacteria. Curing has nothing to do with chlorophyll. If your crops have no bacteria and no plant sugars/fats etc, it gets confusing.
in my opinion there is no need for flush. Its all about careful selection of your inputs during the grow cycle and then a diligent and careful dry and cure process that produces a great tasting smooth smoke...……..I agree with you 100% I think it's the chlorophyll not the nutrients personally. Although ppl tend to think nitrogen is the culprit and that is mobile I have some evidence that disputes that and I can post once I get home. I have come this conclusion based on exclusion and studies I have researched and by no means am I the first one to do so. Not that I am qualified to say for certain but in my simple mind its likely.
Flushing has the possibility in aiding to break down the chlorophyll but the impact would depend on the drying process
ahhhhhhhhh I see you and I think alike. @RippedTorn while bacteria do play a huge part in living soil and great plant growth and cycling don't forget there are many other components that play key rolls in a healthy balanced living soil, nematodes, fungi and protozoa.This is so wrong idk where to start. Bacteria only permeate the roots (not all types) and depending on the bacteria have a symbiotic relationship by breaking nutrients down into a form more easily taken up by the plants. The plants provides food for the bacteria.
I fully agree, no flush here either.in my opinion there is no need for flush. Its all about careful selection of your inputs during the grow cycle and then a diligent and careful dry and cure process that produces a great tasting smooth smoke...……..
GMTA :DI fully agree, no flush here either.
Great link. Few things jumped out at meOK here is that study done very recently that supports flushing is not needed to reduce nutrient levels in cannabis. Its basically saying that there is no significant difference in nutrient levels between flushing and not flushing. However it did not test the levels of chlorophyll in the plants between flushing and not flushing. It also showed that flushing caused no negative effects on THC, yield, etc. Its a long read but you can pretty much skip to the conclusion unless you have questions on the methods of testing and conditions of growing.
After comparing more than a few papers, personal opinions and a shit ton of time reading on how plants processes actually work. IMO with no actual experience. I feel its the chlorophyll and not nutrients that are the culprit. Like I stated previously flushing may or may not help depending on the drying process. But interestingly enough I was kind of surprised that flushing had no negative effects and therefore no real reason not to. Flushing may also have positive/negative impacts on other factors like trichome production, terpenes and canabinoids. But that's another debate in itself.
Yeah I found that odd to but then you have to consider this was a production facility. I would assume their goals would be crop yield, turnover time and then quality. 1 thing i can say is they are using CMH lights that put aout a lot of UV so its likely the leaf temp would be much higher than the ambient temps.Great link. Few things jumped out at meView attachment 818909who flowers that cold?? 20c is 68f. At days 11-44? That is cold. Cool temps reduce/influence nutrient uptake, reduce growth and encourage early ripening just odd they chose those temps. View attachment 818908I would say the intended purpose of flushing is to improve flavor and burn quality. I get it tho what’s the mechanism for improved flavor, less nutrients in the bud? More terpenes? An even, complete combustion? Kind of hard to quantify flavor and taste, it’s very subjective. Idk. I’ll tell you this tho you’re not gonna win any competitions with unflushed weed; organic or not if you’re a heavy smoking connoisseur you can tell the difference. If you vape, pipe, bong make extracts, or eat it you likely will not notice a difference. If you smoke rolled joints heavily and you have a discerning pallet you will notice. Flush a plant and don’t flush one. Smoke a good ounce of each then make your decision. Anecdotal yes, but based on decades of trial and error by 1000s of growers
Excellent paper!!!! thx for sharing this. :DOK here is that study done very recently that supports flushing is not needed to reduce nutrient levels in cannabis. Its basically saying that there is no significant difference in nutrient levels between flushing and not flushing. However it did not test the levels of chlorophyll in the plants between flushing and not flushing. It also showed that flushing caused no negative effects on THC, yield, etc. Its a long read but you can pretty much skip to the conclusion unless you have questions on the methods of testing and conditions of growing.
After comparing more than a few papers, personal opinions and a shit ton of time reading on how plants processes actually work. IMO with no actual experience. I feel its the chlorophyll and not nutrients that are the culprit. Like I stated previously flushing may or may not help depending on the drying process. But interestingly enough I was kind of surprised that flushing had no negative effects and therefore no real reason not to. Flushing may also have positive/negative impacts on other factors like trichome production, terpenes and canabinoids. But that's another debate in itself.
If someone is offended by debate and learning they are in the wrong place:)OK I found a flaw in this study. The cannabis was dried and cured for 21 days before being sent for analysis. So it cannot determine whether or not the flushing had any impact on nutrient levels in the bud as this was done after drying and curing. In order to determine this they would need to send samples at the time of harvest and after drying and curing to show how much impact it had. Its possible at harvest the flushed buds contained much less chlorophyll but the drying process was enough to lower the amounts in both flushed and unflushed buds to almost identical levels. This would also support that drying and curing is the most important factor in the reduction of chlorophyll.
Please excuse my rambling as I am kind of posting as I try to figure this out and I hope its not pissing anyone off.
Chlorophyll is what makes plants green its what allows plants to absorb light energy.I won't lie, I got no idea what chlorophyll is, name sounds familiar kind of though. I replied to the first post not realizing there was 27 pages of replies lol. Figured my input might still apply though lol. I slightly understood what you meant but not fully, this stuff is a bit to technical for me right now lol.
I have been thinking about what you said with the lowered temps they used during this study. What I am wrestling with is lower temps would limit nutrient uptake to some degree, especially root zone temps. If the veg and flower phases were run with lower temps both rootzone and ambient temps than a typical grow room/s experience and nute uptake is limited, then would that in and of itself lend to better over final readings of accumulated nutrients in the flowers. Did that make sense? yea Im off work and baked...…… :DIf someone is offended by debate and learning they are in the wrong place:)
Definitely. Lower temps ,less transpiration, less passive nutrient uptake and from what I understand and what I’ve seen in my veg room in the winter when it’s too cold phosphorus and iron uptake is reduced in cool root zone temps. When it’s really warm I cut my nute Ppms to account for the fact they’re transpiring so much therefore bringing up nutes passively at an accelerated pace. My veg room is 96f right now haha:)I have been thinking about what you said with the lowered temps they used during this study. What I am wrestling with is lower temps would limit nutrient uptake to some degree, especially root zone temps. If the veg and flower phases were run with lower temps both rootzone and ambient temps than a typical grow room/s experience and nute uptake is limited, then would that in and of itself lend to better over final readings of accumulated nutrients in the flowers. Did that make sense? yea Im off work and baked...…… :D
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?